I’m sure you’re definition is probably broad enough that that my concept might include some of the wars you’d discount. …but not all.
in any case, even if I narrowed it down significantly, there’d be enough to disprove “communism is incompatible with war”.
Rather, you could say “in theory, communism is incompatible with war, even though it isn’t a magical fix for the underlying tendencies and in some cases needs that drive war.”
Wars happen for a number of reasons, and there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.
In theory, capitalism is incompatible with war as it is assumed to be a system of fair exchange. Many economists and philosophers followed Ayn Rand in promoting this idea. Obviously it is NOT such a system, and is instead a relentless amoral pursuit of profit and value extraction, and will cheerfully use war to obtain resources while simultaneously extracting value via defense industry stocks. It also uses war to crush any opposed ideologies, which is censorship in its most violent form.
I am not familiar with how communism or socialism is compatible with war outside of Rand’s claim that socialism consumes resources leading to demand for more which must be taken from neighbors rather than using a system of free and fair exchange.
Are you counting defensive wars against capitalist colonizers, fascist invasions, and uprisings against oppressive puppet regimes and tyrants?
I’m sure you’re definition is probably broad enough that that my concept might include some of the wars you’d discount. …but not all.
in any case, even if I narrowed it down significantly, there’d be enough to disprove “communism is incompatible with war”.
Rather, you could say “in theory, communism is incompatible with war, even though it isn’t a magical fix for the underlying tendencies and in some cases needs that drive war.”
Wars happen for a number of reasons, and there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.
In theory, capitalism is incompatible with war as it is assumed to be a system of fair exchange. Many economists and philosophers followed Ayn Rand in promoting this idea. Obviously it is NOT such a system, and is instead a relentless amoral pursuit of profit and value extraction, and will cheerfully use war to obtain resources while simultaneously extracting value via defense industry stocks. It also uses war to crush any opposed ideologies, which is censorship in its most violent form.
I am not familiar with how communism or socialism is compatible with war outside of Rand’s claim that socialism consumes resources leading to demand for more which must be taken from neighbors rather than using a system of free and fair exchange.
…that difference is entirely which side of the battle line you’re on…
Who was the aggressor: Germany or Poland? Israel or Iran? Iraq or the US?
Are you saying that there is no such thing as a right or wrong, good or bad side to a violent conflict?
If so, prove it.
yeah, that’s why I sidestepped that one. It’s an easy pathway into “no, you!”
Who was the aggressor: Germany or Poland? Israel or Iran? Iraq or the US?
Are you saying that there is no such thing as a right or wrong, good or bad side to a violent conflict?
If so, prove it.
No, are you just scrapping for a fight?
No, I’m saying that it’s only “no you!” for bad faith actors. I’d like to think that isnt who we’re dealing with in this site.